Contradiction of WORDS
- Thread starter dcontroversal
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
E
Well I love your name.........No one else cares and I think it is actually one of the best names on here so..........
Fits you well
Fits you well
Maybe I should change mine to elfsonofthunder and you should be ellatruth lol
But truthfully I too like his "tag" name
I agree that every Christian should go by what the Bible says, but on whose or what premise? Your private understanding? Do you have proof text that gives you greater authority than what your church delivers to you? Don't misunderstand, I read your church's web site and I think highly of it, but evangelicals still follow Martin Luther's "bible-alone" invention. It has led to Individualism which further fragmented Protestantism in general. If you don't submit to the authority of your father you might end up starting another church, based on your private opinions. The fact that you hold up everything against the bible alone flows directly from reformist doctrine. Don't get me wrong, the Bible is, and always has been, the primary source of doctrine, but there is nothing in the Bible that says it is the only source. "All scripture is profitable..." but that does not mean all scripture is exclusive.
I was out of line. I apologize.
I was out of line. I apologize.
I agree that every Christian should go by what the Bible says, but on whose or what premise? Your private understanding? Do you have proof text that gives you greater authority than what your church delivers to you? Don't misunderstand, I read your church's web site and I think highly of it, but evangelicals still follow Martin Luther's "bible-alone" invention. It has led to Individualism which further fragmented Protestantism in general. If you don't submit to the authority of your father you might end up starting another church, based on your private opinions. The fact that you hold up everything against the bible alone flows directly from reformist doctrine. Don't get me wrong, the Bible is, and always has been, the primary source of doctrine, but there is nothing in the Bible that says it is the only source. "All scripture is profitable..." but that does not mean all scripture is exclusive.
Originally Posted by dcontroversal
No doubt and his mouthy uncalled for stupid comment on how to spell controversial does not take into account that the name I chose came from an AOL account that I established 10 years ago and dcontroversial WAS ALREADY taken...so his attempted plug was moronic at best and uncalled for!
I was out of line. I apologize.
I was out of line. I apologize.
Fully Accepted, and I apologize for my poor use of words and being just as mouthy
E
First of all major props on your apology! Sign of a humble heart I like that my friend.
I actually think I need to apologize to you too. Reading my post reply to you I think I came off sounding more harsh than I meant too. I am sorry for that.
Actually I do believe in scripture alone for our doctrine as I feel the Word of God is the final authority on conflicts that may arise in the church. But we should also follow Proverbs 3:5 "Trust in the Lord with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding; ". We shouldn't rely on ourselves when it comes to understanding of scripture but pray to the Holy Spirit for guidance. The "Church" should not dictate what the scripture says...that should come from the Holy Spirit.
And no I would NEVER claim to be "enlightened" more than anyone else. Also I wouldn't just follow a "church" blindly (in no way saying you do) but test their doctrine against scripture. I also wouldn't follow a church "tradition" just because it's been tradition for many years.
I believe many people of many denominations follow a "tradition" of a church but have no idea why.
And finally what do you mean as the Bible not being "The only source"? I don't want to misunderstand what you are saying.
I actually think I need to apologize to you too. Reading my post reply to you I think I came off sounding more harsh than I meant too. I am sorry for that.
Actually I do believe in scripture alone for our doctrine as I feel the Word of God is the final authority on conflicts that may arise in the church. But we should also follow Proverbs 3:5 "Trust in the Lord with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding; ". We shouldn't rely on ourselves when it comes to understanding of scripture but pray to the Holy Spirit for guidance. The "Church" should not dictate what the scripture says...that should come from the Holy Spirit.
And no I would NEVER claim to be "enlightened" more than anyone else. Also I wouldn't just follow a "church" blindly (in no way saying you do) but test their doctrine against scripture. I also wouldn't follow a church "tradition" just because it's been tradition for many years.
I believe many people of many denominations follow a "tradition" of a church but have no idea why.
And finally what do you mean as the Bible not being "The only source"? I don't want to misunderstand what you are saying.
Well...I agree and will say that for sure scripture should come first and for sure tradition is without a doubt placed over the truth... Kind of like the following...
Good Idea--->Becomes a practice---->becomes a tradition--->becomes a law<------This is what happens and has happened in a lot of so-called churches for sure.......!
Good Idea--->Becomes a practice---->becomes a tradition--->becomes a law<------This is what happens and has happened in a lot of so-called churches for sure.......!
I didn't find you harsh.
I am sure you are sincere but there is nothing in the Bible about the Bible being the final authority. Precisely. That coincides with 2 Peter 3:16.
[SUP] ...[/SUP]as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
It's good to read the Bible and THINK. But in response I would say you actually follow a tradition when you go to church. You sing so many hyms, read some verses, listen to a sermon, maybe have a collection or offering, sing more hyms...and so on. It's called an itinerary, a tradition, and most evangelicals follow this tradition that is not in the Bible. I'm not saying it's bad, I'm saying you have developed your own traditions.
Well, I don't know everything, but I have a better understanding than most.
The scriptures are God breathed, but so are the Apostles, and when that happened, something very7 significant took place.
I am sure you are sincere but there is nothing in the Bible about the Bible being the final authority. Precisely. That coincides with 2 Peter 3:16.
[SUP] ...[/SUP]as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
It's good to read the Bible and THINK. But in response I would say you actually follow a tradition when you go to church. You sing so many hyms, read some verses, listen to a sermon, maybe have a collection or offering, sing more hyms...and so on. It's called an itinerary, a tradition, and most evangelicals follow this tradition that is not in the Bible. I'm not saying it's bad, I'm saying you have developed your own traditions.
Well, I don't know everything, but I have a better understanding than most.
The scriptures are God breathed, but so are the Apostles, and when that happened, something very7 significant took place.
E
So what are the other authorities you speak of other than the Bible? You failed to answer that question.
No the apostles were not God breathed..only what they wrote was God breathed. If the apostles were God breathed where is the proof of that?
And you saying you have a better understanding than most is actually a very prideful statement.
No the apostles were not God breathed..only what they wrote was God breathed. If the apostles were God breathed where is the proof of that?
And you saying you have a better understanding than most is actually a very prideful statement.
Wow! If your definition of Apostolic or Oral Tradition is true, I wouldn't like it either. But I am not talking about Sacred Tradition (properly defined). I am talking about Martin Luther's invention of "Bible-alone theology", or sola scriptura. It showed up relatively late in the history of Christianity, it has caused numerous division so it doesn't work, it's not found in the Bible, and it is unreasonable.
[SUP]John 20: 22 [/SUP]And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
The only other moment in Scripture where God breathes on man is in Gen. 2:7, when the Lord "breathes" divine life into man. When this happens, a significant transformation takes place. What did Jesus say next?
John 20:23 - "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven. If you retain the sins of any, they are retained."
Jesus is passing HIS authority to the Apostles, so where does Jesus get his authority from?
John 20:21 - before He grants them the authority to forgive sins, Jesus says to the apostles, "as the Father sent me, so I send you."
So far, we have established that:
The Father sends Jesus,
Jesus sends the Apostles.
Next we should establish whether Jesus founded a living, teaching, authoritive Church that thrived for some 20 years without one verse of New Testament scripture, and had no universally accepted Bible as we know it for over 350 years. The Bible is a subset of Apostolic Teaching, not the other way around. I don't mean to offend anyone here, but "Bible-based church" just means a rejection of what the early Church believed and practiced, as witnessed by the Early Church Fathers, some of whom were trained by the Apostles themselves. You might find a few snippets from them that are questionable, but there consensus is not.
Is there an authority outside the Bible? We have been debating this for 500 years. It's really a stupid question because the Bible and the Church say the same thing. Removing the Bible from the Church is asking for trouble. That's what Arius did. That's what Nestorius did, and Pelagius and every heretic in the patristic period.
The authority of the Church does not compete with or supplant the authority of the Bible. But something with divine protection must exist to ensure what was passed on was the Truth, before the books of the Bible were ratified by the Church. It took 3 centuries and 4 councils to discern inspired books from fake ones. They weren't assumed to be inspired, they had to be proven to be inspired. "test all things", but against what? a New Testament that didn't yet fully exist? Against Apostolic Teaching that's what. It can be historically demonstrated, using Protestant sources, the timeline of acceptance of New Testament books.
The Bible didn't produce a church, The Church proved, compiled, preserved and read aloud from the Bible.
To summarize: without the authority of the Church, there would be no Bible, and they are not in competition.
Here's a question for you. By the bible alone, how do we know there should be 27 books in the New Testament? Is there an inspired table of contents?
The only other moment in Scripture where God breathes on man is in Gen. 2:7, when the Lord "breathes" divine life into man. When this happens, a significant transformation takes place. What did Jesus say next?
John 20:23 - "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven. If you retain the sins of any, they are retained."
Jesus is passing HIS authority to the Apostles, so where does Jesus get his authority from?
John 20:21 - before He grants them the authority to forgive sins, Jesus says to the apostles, "as the Father sent me, so I send you."
So far, we have established that:
The Father sends Jesus,
Jesus sends the Apostles.
Next we should establish whether Jesus founded a living, teaching, authoritive Church that thrived for some 20 years without one verse of New Testament scripture, and had no universally accepted Bible as we know it for over 350 years. The Bible is a subset of Apostolic Teaching, not the other way around. I don't mean to offend anyone here, but "Bible-based church" just means a rejection of what the early Church believed and practiced, as witnessed by the Early Church Fathers, some of whom were trained by the Apostles themselves. You might find a few snippets from them that are questionable, but there consensus is not.
Is there an authority outside the Bible? We have been debating this for 500 years. It's really a stupid question because the Bible and the Church say the same thing. Removing the Bible from the Church is asking for trouble. That's what Arius did. That's what Nestorius did, and Pelagius and every heretic in the patristic period.
The authority of the Church does not compete with or supplant the authority of the Bible. But something with divine protection must exist to ensure what was passed on was the Truth, before the books of the Bible were ratified by the Church. It took 3 centuries and 4 councils to discern inspired books from fake ones. They weren't assumed to be inspired, they had to be proven to be inspired. "test all things", but against what? a New Testament that didn't yet fully exist? Against Apostolic Teaching that's what. It can be historically demonstrated, using Protestant sources, the timeline of acceptance of New Testament books.
The Bible didn't produce a church, The Church proved, compiled, preserved and read aloud from the Bible.
To summarize: without the authority of the Church, there would be no Bible, and they are not in competition.
Here's a question for you. By the bible alone, how do we know there should be 27 books in the New Testament? Is there an inspired table of contents?